The Pros and Cons of The Toronto Hearings

In Search of Truth

I spent September 8th to 12th in Toronto, Ontario, Canada attending The International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001, an event sponsored primarily by James Gourley’s International Centre for 9/11 Studies, which appears to be a mostly virtual entity based in the United States with a web site at International Center for 9/11 Studies

The International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001, also referred to as the “Toronto Hearings”, set the following objectives for the hearings:

(1) To present evidence that the U.S. government’s official investigation into the events of September 11, 2001, as pursued by various government and government-appointed agencies, is seriously flawed and has failed to describe and account for the 9/11 events.

(2) To single out the most weighty evidence of the inadequacy of the U.S. government’s investigation; to organize and classify that evidence; to preserve that evidence; to make that evidence widely known to the public and to governmental, non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations.

(3) To submit a record and a summary of the Hearings, together with signed Statutory Declarations by witnesses, to relevant governments, groups and international agencies with the request that a full and impartial investigation be launched into the events of September 11, 2001, which have been used to initiate military invasions and to restrict the rights of citizens.

(4) To engage the attention of the public, the international community and the media through witness testimony as well as through media events broadcasted via the Internet during the four day event.

No sincere 9/11 truth-seeker could dispute the spirit of these objectives, which every member of the 9/11 truth movement ought to employ as a rough guideline for future research and activism.

University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada

For the past sixteen months, I have been a full time graduate student at the University of Lethbridge working on an MA thesis entitledThe Origins of the Global War on Terror: Intellectual Debates and Interpretive Controversies which has been subsidized by the Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Scholarship which I was awarded in November 2010.

I was thus observing the Toronto Hearings as someone who has a decent awareness of what is strong evidence, what is inconclusive evidence and what is irrelevant when it comes to what did and did not happen on 9/11.

While I am grateful for his assistance, the suggestion that he or Kevin Barrett or T. Mike Hightower ought to have been invited to participate was mine, not his, in case there should be any doubt.

I think their presence would have contributed an element that was largely missing from the Hearings, which is the presentation of conflicting arguments on crucial issues, such as those that have arisen over nanothermite, as I explain below.

Joshua Blakeney explains his run-ins with the National Post’s Jonathan Kay.

The Pros of the Toronto Hearings

How effective will the forthcoming Final Report of the International Hearings on September 11, 2001 be?

There were many commendable achievements of the Toronto Hearings.

Firstly, they brought together a wide array of researchers, politicians, physicists, journalist, engineers, architects, teachers, academics and citizens who purport to share an interest in what did and did not transpire on 9/11.

Secondly, the steering committee which included Graeme MacQueen, Laurie Manwell, James Gourley, Adnan Zuberi and Kevin Ryan introduced a quazi-judicial format which should be employed by subsequent 9/11 Hearings and which has helped pave the way for future jurisprudence on the subject of 9/11.

Rather than merely having audience members posit questions to presenters, who were referred to as “witnesses”, the organizers commissioned four distinguished panelists to hear the evidence.

These panelists will submit their evaluations of the testimony for the forthcoming Final Report of the International Hearings on September 11, 2001. The structure of the Toronto Hearings was thus exemplary.

By allowing for cross-examination presenters were compelled to be on their toes, which probably made the testimony they gave appear more legitimate and reliable.

Moreover, the allegation that presenters were totally “preaching to the converted” could not be sustained. One panelist, Judge Imposimato, Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy, heretofore has never been known to actively promote skepticism towards the official story of 9/11.

Whilst I endorse the structure of the Toronto Hearings and whilst I think about 75% of the content did provide a selection of the “most weighty evidence of the inadequacy of the U.S. government’s investigation”, I think perhaps 25% of the content did not meet this standard and was less relevant than evidence which could have been included in the hearings.

The allegation could be sustained that the organizers squandered about ¼ of the Hearings’ time on what might be called inconclusive evidence or abstract theoretical discussions when more “weighty” and relevant evidence exists, which brings us closer towards the truth of 9/11.

Learning from Experience

The fact that especially Graeme MacQueen, Adnan Zuberi and Laurie Manwell are pleasant, well-intentioned individuals who worked extremely hard to organize the Toronto Hearings should not preclude us from offering constructive criticism of

1) their decision to emphasize certain pieces of “evidence” over others;

2) the statements of individual speakers who spoke at the Hearings;

3) the inclusion of certain presenters over others.

Cognizant of the truism that “nice people can make bad judgments”, I will proceed with constructive criticism of the Hearings in this article whilst also stating what I thought were some of the positive elements of the four day event.

Mr. Twin Towers - Larry Silverstein

If poor decisions by the steering committee are not criticized by bona fide 9/11 skeptics, then future 9/11-related hearings might replicate the handful of mistakes, which I elucidate in this article.

I therefore believe that we should learn from the achievements of the Toronto Hearings and reject the mistakes. That seems to be the best way for us to progress as the 9/11 Truth Movement develops its juridical personality.

We all hope for future investigations into the events of 9/11. It is integral that when we finally achieve authentic and objective criminal investigations into 9/11 that we’ve been employing a processes of elimination to eliminate irrelevant evidence from our case against individuals, such as Dick Cheney and Larry Silverstein, who stand accused of complicity in the events of 9/11.

My main argument in this essay is that, while much good was done during the Toronto Hearings, a significant amount of time was squandered on topics that if raised in a court of law would be deemed irrelevant to what did and did not happen on 9/11.

On the Issue of Relevancy

After my comrade Splitting the Sky bravely attempted a citizen’s arrest on George W. Bush on March 17, 2009 in Calgary and was arrested for “obstructing a police officer” (who was protecting a credibly accused war criminal), I was able to participate in the March 2010 trial at the Calgary Courts Centre, which many dubbed “The Trial of Splitting the Sky versus George W. Bush.”

As one of a handful of individuals who sat through all of the proceedings, I noted in particular how the issue of relevancy was repeatedly invoked by both the Crown and judge when it came to whether or not evidence of Bush’s crimes was to be included in the record.

Splitting the Sky attempted a citizen's arrest on George W. Bush in Calgary, Alberta, Canada on March 17, 2009. During "The Trial of Splitting the Sky versus Bush" there was a burden of proof to demonstrate the relevancy of Bush's misdeeds to the proceedings.

If we’re attempting to solve the crime of 9/11, we have to be as specific and relevant as possible with regard to the evidence we adduce. The steering committee, in my view, failed to properly consider relevancy in its inclusion of certain pieces of “evidence” and by their extension of invitations to certain speakers (which in some cases may have involved favouritism trumping reason).

Whilst the steering committee insisted that the Hearings were to be different than conventional academic conferences, many of the presentations were more suited to an academic conference as they were more abstract and theoretical than empirical or evidentiary.

Four Criticisms of the Toronto Hearings

I will argue that the failure to explicitly rule out Let-It-Happen-On-Purpose theory (LIHOP) consistently throughout the proceedings allowed precious time to be wasted with several speakers providing analyses of 9/11 which implied that the U.S. government had allowed bin Laden and al-Qaeda to attack them on 9/11, a theory that had been dispelled by David Ray Griffin on the first day of the proceedings.

I will further attempt to prove that the time dedicated to the discovery of thermetic materials in the dust from the WTC towers was not only highly inconclusive in terms of explaining how the towers were destroyed but that this inconclusiveness was in fact noted by one of the panelists, namely, Professor Richard B. Lee.

Benjamin Netanyahu published the book "Terrorism: How the West Can Win" in 1986. This book is Netanyahu's "Mein Kampf" offering a blueprint for the Global War on Terrorism. This book offers evidence to suggest that the intellectual framework for the 9/11 wars came from Israel

I will bring into question the relevance of the discussion of SCADs (State Crimes Against Democracy) absent a prior determination of whether the “war on terrorism” was primarily contrived by agents of the U.S. state or of the Israeli state.

Documents going back to the 1980s, emanating from Tel Aviv rather than Washington, such as the book Terrorism: How the West Can Win (1986) edited by Benjamin Netanyahu, suggest that the “war on terrorism” was an Israeli inspired initiative.

Many scholars such as Walt, Mearshimer, Petras, Sneigoski and others have demonstrated that the lead protagonists for the “war on terrorism” were “Israel firsters” such as Wolfowitz and Feith, both of whom lost their security clearances in the 1980s for passing classified documents for Israel.

Redundant Cold Warriors such as Cheney and Rumsfeld were just “hangers on” to this Israelocentric initiative, such scholars argue.

The psychological and epistemological discussions included in the Hearings, I will argue, whilst academically interesting, otherwise tell us little about what transpired on 9/11.

Such presentations as the one provided by Laurie Manwell lack direct relevance to 9/11 and hinder attempts to “single out the most weighty evidence of the inadequacy of the U.S. government’s [9/11] investigation.”

A Flawed Definition of Evidence

Relevance of Evidence

While I generally endorse the organizational structure of the Toronto Hearings and, in particular, the attempt to create a court-like structure for the proceedings, one departure from anything resembling jurisprudence was the decision that the admissibility of “evidence” was contingent on certain unconventional criteria which seemed to run contrary to the stated goal of bringing forth the most weighty evidence.

The Toronto Hearings website, it should be noted, has now removed these criteria, perhaps to conceal their odd methodology. But we can assume that the following key paragraph, heretofore available on their website, provides a good indication of how the purported evidence was “sifted”:

“Evidence presented at the Hearings will be chosen according to the following criteria: high degree of certainty; importance; and consensus. High degree of certainty means that the Hearings will concentrate not on speculation but on facts that can firmly be established.”

“Importance means that the Hearings will concentrate on elements of the governmental explanation that are crucial to that explanation. Consensus means that evidence chosen will be that which is least controversial within the movement of dissent that is critical of the official explanation” (my emphases).

LIHOP versus MIHOP

David Ray Griffin gets it right again by demonstrating that al-Qaeda didn't hijack flight 77 or any of the other allegedly hijacked planes on 9/11

On the first day of the Toronto Hearings David Ray Griffin established that there is no evidence that al-Qaeda or Osama bin-Laden did 9/11.

Although the video of Griffin’s testimony from September 8th is not posted in its entirety on the internet, I explicitly recall someone asking a question of Griffin during the Q&A about bin Laden and him replying that he didn’t feel any need to discuss bin Laden or al-Qaeda as they relate to the events of 9/11, because there is no evidence that they were involved in the events of 9/11.

This, like the vast majority of Griffin’s utterances, is accurate. Griffin’s assertions were supported by the excellent presentation of Jay Kolar on the morning of September 9th.

Firstly, bin Laden denied involvement in the events of 9/11; most, if not all of the alleged hijackers were not Islamists; it is unclear whether or not al-Qaeda even exists as an autonomous and coherent non-state actor; there is no evidence that the alleged hijackers boarded any of the flights on 9/11; and, as Wayne Madsen has revealed, British intelligence documents suggest that the alleged hijacker cells were run and operated by the Mossad.

In a proper court of law, were it established on the first day of the trial that entity X (in this case al-Qaeda) was not involved in the crimes, any subsequent references to it would be omitted so as not to waste the court’s time. Subsequent 9/11 hearings should employ such a process of elimination.

Michel Chossudovsky needs to do some homework

A process of elimination was not displayed during the Hearings; come the afternoon of Day 2 of the Toronto Hearings Professor Michel Chossudovsky, who came through the door at the last minute having arrived from Montreal and who spoke extemporaneously, made repeated references to al-Qaeda, bin Laden, and the complicity of intelligence agencies with Islamists, thereby implying that this was relevant to what transpired on 9/11.

Either al-Qaeda and bin Laden were involved in 9/11 or they weren’t.

It cannot be both. Perhaps Chossudovsky was chosen to speak not because of what he says about 9/11, which reinforces the myth of al-Qaeda involvement in 9/11 leading an investigation into 9/11 on a wild goose chase, but rather because of his credentials.

This may have also been the case with Professor Peter Dale Scott, who spoke of the alleged al-Qaeda hijackers boarding Flight 77, even though the speaker immediately before him, David Ray Griffin, had explained at length that it was simply impossible that “al-Qaeda hijackers” had taken control of Fight 77 on 9/11.

Footage of David Ray Griffin being contradicted by Peter Dale Scott at The Toronto Hearings.

Michel Chossudovsky entitled his book "America's War on Terrorism". "Israel's War on Terrorism" would have better encapsulated the historical genesis of the "war on terrorism".

Either al-Qaeda hijackers hijacked Flight 77 or they did not. Either Griffin is right and Scott is wrong or vice versa. The organizers–by failing to critically analyze the prior statements of Chossudovsky and of Scott–both of whom seem to be stuck in an “al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11″ analysis–allowed the Toronto Hearings to hear testimony whose relevance to the events of 9/11 is highly tenuous.

Indeed one cannot help but wonder if these individuals were chosen not because they bring forth evidence about which there is “[a] high degree of certainty; importance; and consensus”, but rather because they are big names whose credentials would make the hearings look credible–even if their testimony would regress the quest for truth and justice by taking the Hearings off course.

In other words, despite all the stated rigid criteria aimed at sorting strong from weak evidence, the organizers possibly committed the fallacy of appealing to the authority of the names of two famous researchers who are perhaps famous and less persecuted because, unlike more rigorous 9/11 researchers (for example, Barrett and Fetzer), they parrot the al-Qaeda myth thus indirectly aiding and abetting those culpable for 9/11.

Appeals to Authority

In "The Road to 9/11" Peter Dale Scott fails to consider whether or not al-Qaeda actually hijacked the planes on 9/11 and presents an implausible LIHOP analysis of 9/11. While Scott has done exceptional work theorizing about "deep events", his empirical research is somewhat lacking, at least on the subject of 9/11.

Could it be that Peter Dale Scott’s Road to 9/11 (2007) was published by a major print house because it wasn’t subversive to those in power? After all in his works Scott has mainly emphasized the historic role played by “al-Qaeda” in the imperialism of the United States.

Whilst this history is interesting it tells us little about 9/11, which appears neither to have been done by Islamists nor to have primarily advanced Big Oil’s desired policies.

Rather, it seemingly involved the Mossad-controlled, mostly secular patsies and represented a coup d’état by a Zionist faction of the ruling class in order to implement policies which departed markedly from the traditional U.S. Middle East imperial policy of fostering stability for oil markets through the propping up of Arab strongmen like Saddam Hussein.

And could Michel Chossudovsky be so highly successful because he draws attention away (perhaps for emotional or ideological reasons) from the fact that the whole “war on terrorism” was concocted by Likudnik Zionists to shift U.S. imperial policy in a direction desired by them?

The invitation extended to individuals who wrongly testified that al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11, such as Scott and Chossudovsky, appears to have been at least in part intended by the organizers to promote a favorable public reception of the Toronto Hearings.

That very objective was implied toward the end of the Toronto Hearings by steering committee member Laurie Manwell, who explained that they had gone to great length to project the Hearings in a way that would appeal to the mainstream media as a public relations strategy.

Canada - The Globe and Mail

Holding up the two mediocre news reports by The Globe and Mail and The National Post on the Hearings, she candidly stated that the steering committee had “deliberately” framed the Hearings to curry favour with those whom many of us regard as 9/11-cover-up artists in the mainstream media.

Unfortunately, this provides insight into the steering committee’s methodology, which departs from recognized means of discerning truth as a court of law would do and places politics before science.

Either the Toronto Hearings were intended to prioritize the most compelling evidence (even if it was politically incorrect) as a court of law would do or the steering committee tried to fashion the Hearings relative to the bigoted, 9/11-cover up artists in the corporate media.

The controversial decision of the Toronto Hearings to include the least controversial evidence within the Truth Movement represented an abandonment of the traditional approach to truth-seeking, which should be divorced from political correctness, since “controversial” evidence can be true and non-controversial “evidence” can be false or redundant.

The Deeper Problem

Osama bin Laden - The Younger

It can be argued therefore that of the nineteen or so “testimonies” given over the four day period of the Toronto Hearings at least two, those of Scott and Chossudovsky, were mostly superfluous due to the fact that they endorsed the myth that Osama bin-Laden and al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11, even though, as was established on Day 1 by David Ray Griffin, Day 2 by Jay Kolar and again on Day 4 by Griffin, neither were actually involved.

To have a discussion of the political motives for 9/11 without including a discussion of Israeli geopolitics, whilst perhaps gratifying to the pro-Israel National Post, is highly displeasing to those of us who’ve worked hard to expose the multiple Israeli connections to 9/11.

The vagaries about al-Qaeda in relation to 9/11 offered by Chossudovsky and by Scott could have been replaced by more apposite testimony coming from scholars, such as Professor James Petras, a distinguished sociologist who has demonstrated that the “war on terrorism” has a lot more to do with Israel than Big Oil and who, unlike the Hearings, includes the evidence of Mossad involvement in 9/11, such as “the Dancing Israelis”, in his analysis of 9/11 and of “the war on terrorism”.

Furthermore, whilst the testimony provided by Senator Mike Gravelwas politically inspiring, it too had little to do with what did or did not happen on 9/11, which brings into question its relevance in the Hearings, the ostensible goal of which was to refute the official account of 9/11.

Senator Mike Gravel

One can imagine defenders of the official story of 9/11, say for example Dick Cheney’s legal team, hearing this “weighty evidence” and opining “Is that all you’ve got?” when in fact there is a great deal of more compelling evidence, which unfortunately is indeed “controversial” and was thus omitted from the Toronto Hearings.

The best way of course to avoid controversy during International Hearings on The Events of September 11, 2001, is to simply not talk directly about what transpired on 9/11.

This was the case with the presentations of Laurie Manwell and Mike Gravel who gave compelling and insightful presentations but whose testimony seems to have deviated from the stated goal of the steering committee to “single out the most weighty evidence of the inadequacy of the U.S. government’s investigation.”

Manwell’s presentation barely touched on the events of 9/11, instead offering an abstract discussion more suited for an academic conference on the subject of the psychology of beliefs.

Manwell even acknowledged in her presentation that some of the presentations at the Hearings departed from what she called the “direct approach” of presenting direct evidence of a false belief and employed an “indirect approach” by focusing more on the form of false beliefs rather than the content of the them.

Since she suggests that the presentation of evidence can strengthen false beliefs, had her “indirect approach” been rigorously followed during the Hearings, evidence that strongly refutes the official account would have probably been excluded–which would have contradicted the avowed objectives and criteria upon which they were based and would appear to be the most extreme form of putting 9/11 politics ahead of science.

Laurie Manwell speaks at the Toronto Hearings about the psychological resistance to alternative theories. While this presentation is of high academic quality its relevance to what did and did not happen on 9/11 is questioned in this article.

Red/Grey Chips: Red Herring ?

The Nanothermite Challenge

What was ostensibly the greatest strength of the Toronto Hearings—that they were meant to highlight the relatively recent scientific findings of the Steve Jones/Kevin Ryan/Neils Harrit group, especially in relation to the co-authored Bentham Science Chemical Physics Journalarticle that has been received with such approval by the 9/11 Truth community—may have been its Achilles heel.

Having studied articles by T. Mark Hightower and Professor Fetzer about the exaggeration by the Steve Jones/Kevin Ryan/Neils Harrit group of the capabilities of nanothermite, including “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?” and “Is ‘9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?”, which suggest that nanothermite cannot possibly have been responsible for the explosive destruction of the Twin Towers, I was especially concerned as to how this “nanothermite challenge” would be met.

I wish I could report that Ryan and Harrit, who were present, were able to sustain the scientific integrity of a research program initiated by Steven Jones, who was not, but I am afraid the results were decidedly mixed.

Even though Hightower has been explicit about his discovery—based upon an extended search of the literature—that nanothermite lacks the explosive properties that have been widely attributed to it, his findings were neither reported nor discussed during the Toronto Hearings.

Could nanothermite have caused this?

This would have been a very difficult issue under any conditions, but the relatively incestuous citations of Harrit by Ryan and of Ryan by Harrit did little to lay to rest the concerns raised by Hightower’s finding that nanothermite has a detonation velocity of only 895 m/s, which means it can neither pulverize concrete nor shatter steel by means of its shockwaves, which would require detonation velocities equal to the speed of sound in those materials of 3,200 m/s and of 6,100 m/s.

Since virtually all sides agree that the Twin Towers were destroyed by being exploded from the top down (where explosions exert forces in every direction, while gravity does so only in one), that nanothermite cannot have performed that feat suggests that the 9/11 Truth Movement and the Toronto Hearings have succumbed to a red herring.

This was twigged by one of the distinguished panelists Professor Richard B. Lee who questioned the relevancy of nanothermite to the destruction of the towers during one of Kevin Ryan’s lectures.

I was hoping that these representatives of the “hard science” group would graciously concede that the properties of nanothermite have indeed been “oversold”, which would open investigation as to how the destruction of the Twin Towers was actually done—possibly including unconventional mechanisms such as mini-nukes or the censored directed-energy alternative—but my hopes were not fulfilled when Niels Harrit, in particular, suggested that, in the age of nano-technology, perhaps the distinction between incendiaries and explosives no longer matters!

Such speculation, I am sorry to say, does not provide a solution to the problem and most certainly does not meet “the nanothermite challenge”.

Weighing the Pros and Cons

The avowed objectives of the Toronto Hearings were admirable and the organizational structure of the meeting was highly appropriate.

There can be no doubt that the evidence brought forth in the presentations of Cynthia McKinney, Jay Kolar, Paul Zarembka, Barbara Honegger, Graeme MacQueen and David Ray Griffin met and went beyond the standard of providing the most “weighty” evidence belying the official story of 9/11.

However, the use of criteria of selection that valued absence of controversy over scientific truth was a blunder. Putting primacy of public relations ahead of the science of 9/11 could only move the “hard science” group in the direction of the lowest common denominator.

While Laurie Manwell was given ample time to explain, for example, what part of our brain causes us to defer to authority, many important aspects of 9/11 were given only short shrift.

There was a failure to provide an extensive discussion of the absence of any evidence of a Boeing 757 at the Pentagon which was probably its most glaring failure–apart from the clear impression of wanting to paper-over the scientific limitations of appealing to a substance that cannot have been responsible for blowing apart the Twin Towers as though it could have been, which may leave a bitter-sweet taste for those who were there, when they finally put “2” and “2” together. This is a problem that is not going to go away.

Since the Toronto Hearings were modeled on a judicial procedure, the adversarial method should have been embraced by bringing T. Mark Hightower, at least, and probably Professor Jim Fetzer as well to contest the views that were being presented.

If this had been done the judges would have had a firmer basis to reach conclusions and the “hearings” might have had a stronger claim to its own name. Supplanting truth with banality is a recipe for castrating the 9/11 Truth Movement as a force for good.

Some of the truths we have discovered may have far more potential to capture the imagination of the public than even the most extensive discussions of how an incendiary might possibly be reworked to function as a high explosive. For the life of me, I cannot see how such an approach has any potential for capturing the imagination of the public or leading us towards proper criminal investigations into 9/11.

Illuminating the fact that no plane hit the U.S. military command and control center, or that five Israelis but no Muslims were arrested on 9/11, might do it, but the unproven, speculative nanothermite hypothesis advanced in particular by Harrit during the Hearings along with Manwell’s abstract psychoanalyses would in a court of law be dismissed as lacking direct relevance to the crimes perpetrated on 9/11.

Mathieu Kassovitz, playing a Mossad agent in "Munich", plants a bomb in the phone of a Palestinian.

As someone who recently viewed “Munich,” the Stephen Speilberg film about Mossad agents seeking retribution for Black September, I was surprised to see one of the onscreen Mossad agents present at the Toronto Hearings.

There I was shoving bacon and eggs down my throat, demonstrating to all that in a previous incarnation I was indeed an English hooligan, when Pernille Grumme (Niels Harrit’s partner) and French actor Mathieu Kassovitz sat down to ask me several questions relating to 9/11. It turns out that Mathieu has an interest in 9/11 and, at least on the surface (he is an actor you know), seemed very concerned with the cover-up of 9/11.

Mathieu Kassovitz in fact pledged $50,000 for Senator Mike Gravel’s ballot initiative for which we must all be grateful. As a result of his concern for 9/11 Mathieu Kassovitz was allowed to speak at the Hearings and has expressed an interest in making a film about 9/11.

As more and more of us are exposing the Israeli involvement in 9/11 one cannot help wondering if Mathieu for ideological reasons will exclude this evidence, as the Toronto Hearings did, from any forthcoming 9/11 films. The Spielberg movie in which he starred was certainly a pro-“war on terrorism” film, which portrayed Arabs as expendable, murderous terrorists and Kassovitz and his fellow onscreen Mossad agents combating Arab barbarism jus in bello.

Mathieu Kassovitz provides an impromptu speech at the Toronto Hearings.

Mathieu Kassovitz

The inconsistency between LIHOP and MIHOP, the failure to confront “the nanothermite challenge”, and ignoring evidence implicating the Mossad in 9/11 were perhaps the most glaring failures of the Hearings.

But I am sure that others were as astonished as I to hear Kevin Ryan, of all people, apologizing for the inadequacies of the work of the NIST scientists on the ground that he did not doubt their “honest work” which was revised and tweaked by their supervisors, who conveyed false impressions.

But he doesn’t explain how he could possibly know this.

It would have been far better if there had been less political correctness and more truth, both in the hearings and in this film, because there can be no doubt that the controversial decision to sideline “controversial evidence” has had the effect of suppressing truths about 9/11 which might unintentionally and lamentably make the forthcoming Final Report of the International Hearings on September 11, 2001 far less persuasive than it otherwise might have been.

Joshua Blakeney is a freelance journalist and activist originally from Surrey, UK living in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Joshua was the Media Coordinator of Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge from September 2009 to October 2010. Joshua earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology from the University of Lethbridge graduating with distinction in April 2010.

He is currently studying for a Master of Arts degree at the University of Lethbridge. His research topic is The Origins of the Global War on Terror: Academic Debates and Interpretive Controversies. Joshua's research became national news after he was awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Scholarship to study the Origins of the Global War on Terror.

Joshua has published articles on a variety of topics including The War on Terror, 9/11 and 7/7, Marxism, Anglo-American politics, Israel-Palestine, Zionism, with a number of media venues including Global Research.ca, Voltairenet.org, Coldtype.net, The Canadian Dimension, The Canadian Charger, Veterans Today, Montreal 9/11 Truth, 9/11 Blogger, sphr.org, and The Information Clearing House. His work has been quoted in articles in The National Post and on Rabble.ca.

Comments Closed

61 Responses to "The Pros and Cons of The Toronto Hearings"

Here’s a link to chemist Christian Simensen’s theory that the mixture of the 33 tons of aluminum in each plane which hit the WTC was heated enough by their burning fuel to reach temperature where a chemical reaction started with the water coming from the broken sprinkler systems, resulting in temperature where ultimately hydrogen was given off, and exploded:

Gets my vote for what happened there since it satisfies the claims of Occam’s Razor best when it comes to all the absurdities claimed by others, especially there were no planes but rockets or space beams, planted explosives in the buildings, and that the explosions even started beforehand in their basements.

Now, over to you conspiracy theorists!

Jim Fetzer October 13, 2011 at 2:37 am

Except, of course, there was no water in the sprinkler systems at that point in time, because they had been drained by the enormous explosions in the subbasements that Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong, “Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job”, long since established in their research confirming the report of William Rodriquez. You need to do more reading, since your posts are outdated before they even appear.

Is there ever going to be a discussion of the recent claims by a scientist that the planes’ aluminum, plus the burning of their fuel, etc., in the confined spaces of the WTC, were enough to bring the buildings down – what makes those claims about no planes, no pilots, no Muslim highjackers, no passengers, no cellphone calls, etc., just convenient government obfuscations?

It also contains information regarding correspondence I had, for example, with Mr Dimitri Khalezov – he did not know, initially, what the “bathtub” (in relation to the WTC) actually was!

The good thing about collecting and focusing on the available evidence is that if you study it for long enough, it will tell you what happened – and can be a guide to what is likely to happen – 3 years after you first determined that it might happen…

Jim Fetzer September 28, 2011 at 9:02 am

For anyone who wants to know the score about Andrew and his book, which–as he acknowledges–gives a look “inside the cult”, they should take a good look at the comments as they unfolded on my blog,http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/911-photographic-portfolio-of-death-and.html While I like Judy’s work, especially in recording and documenting the varieties of damage done to the World Trade Center, the actions and activities of some of her followers demonstrates that they display features of a cult, not a scientific research group, where Johnson, I am sorry to say, has thoroughly discredited himself thereby.

Bill Enyart September 27, 2011 at 10:29 pm

I think you have written a very justifiable criticism, Joshua.

It pains me to see anyone in this movement resort to name-calling, but but I guess we are all just playground children after all.

My biggest question continues to be unanswered:

Why is Dimitri Khalizov being dropped like a lead balloon from the destruction discussion? He swears to God he has knowledge of a thermo-nuclear demolition scheme for the towers which was in place at the time of their construction. He says they were 77 metres below the ground level. And it was likely a case of overkill, so it could have been a combination of explosives. Science does prove that nano-thermite explains part of the destruction.

Bob Loblaw Jr September 27, 2011 at 12:21 pm

Run about, scream and shout!
The truth will out! The truth will out!
Fight it out! Fight it out!
In the end the truth will out.

Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds have failed to discuss Jones’ full hypothesis in their essay, therefore they have failed to answer his full argument.

Even if the arguments presented by Wood and Reynolds in this essay were completely valid, they do not challenge Steven Jones’ controlled demolition hypothesis in any meaningful way. Effectively, their argument attempts to disprove the type of incendiary/explosive/cutter-charge used—there is no attempt to discredit the possibility of other explosives being used. Their list of objections completely ignores the fact that Jones’ actual theory involves explosives in combination as well as the eleven features of controlled demolition.

Ignoring evidence is not scientific and frequently results in biased and unscientific conclusions. Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds are entitled to any legitimate criticisms of Steven Jones. They are not entitled to distort his positions and present deceptive arguments. As they have written papers on Jones’ research in the past, they have no excuse for these misleading arguments.

Jim Fetzer September 28, 2011 at 8:33 am

I have no idea why Camron Wiltshire is making posts that ignore what Mark and I have had to say about this point. That nanothermite could be combined with explosives to make it explosive is also the case for toothpaste and breakfast cereal. We have addressed this claim in several papers. See, for example, “Nanothermite: If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!” Apparently this guy thinks he can say anything and it is going to matter, but those who know our position are aware that we have addressed it. If nanothermite was combined with explosives, then WHAT WERE THOSE EXPLOSIVES? That is the major question that has been deferred because of the myth of “explosive nanothermite”. Camron needs to get serious, because his trifling posts about a claim we have addressed are discrediting him.

Brilliant article Joshua. The 9/11 Truth Movement desperately needs open investigation “as to how the destruction of the Twin Towers was actually done – possibly including unconventional mechanisms such as mini-nukes or the censored directed-energy alternative”.

The problem is that the group of people who relentlesly attack the Pentagon researchers at Citizens Investigation Team and Pilots for 9/11 Truth and those who support them – have not been held accountable for their actions and still hold positions of influence within the 9/11 Truth Movement.

This same group of people will now relentlessly attack anyone who supports research into what caused the destruction of the Twin Towers.

In the above clip “Toronto Hearings’ panelist Professor Richard B. Lee realizes that nano-thermite-as-explosive-theory is being oversold by Kevin Ryan” – the audio cuts out from 1:33 to 1:55.

Matthew Naus September 24, 2011 at 10:42 pm

I found this to be the most important part in this article:
“I was hoping that these representatives of the “hard science” group would graciously concede that the properties of nanothermite have indeed been “oversold”, which would open investigation as to how the destruction of the Twin Towers was actually done—possibly including unconventional mechanisms such as mini-nukes or the censored directed-energy alternative”
The biggest failure of these hearings was the censored directed-energy alternative. It is easy to see why this evidence was censored considering it was James Gourley who had most of the control about how these hearings would be handled. Their mandate to single out the most weighty evidence should have been phrased to single out nanothermite end of discussion.

Jim Fetzer September 28, 2011 at 8:56 am

Matt, you got that right! I do not know whether or not the theory of directed energy weaponry will prove more explanatory than that of mini-nukes, where serious research has been put on hold by the myth of “explosive nanothermite”, but Dwain Deets has initiated comparative studies, which is positive sign for the direction of future research. Check out http://vimeo.com/29575849 for his approach to WTC-7.

Jim Fetzer September 23, 2011 at 10:26 am

Well, there are quite a few trolls, shills and debunkers here, as you and Peter exemplify so well. When are you going to have an argument about any of this? Even Trobridge is making you both look very bad.

The really interesting thing about VT, is it gives away those that are into the truth and those that are out of the truth – the trolls, shills and debunkers from all angles as the fleet sails into battle the forward guns go off followed by the waist and stern batteries before the swing is made to engage the “enemy” for the stbd guns to rake the vessel in question….to the trained observer, the truth is seen.

Once the original cover-up is set in place, there is no way in hell that you are going to convincingly change it, much less get the real culprints.

And I don’t see VT supporting anyone here, just allowing notable persons to express their ideas about matters as best they can.

Too bad for viewers and posters to take so seriously ideas that they don’t like or agree with by leaving, but if you cannot take the heat, it is hardly surprising.

Nelson_2008 September 22, 2011 at 10:03 pm

I agree with you about Michel Chossudovsky and Peter Dale Scott. Chossudovsky is a Jew, and I have yet to see a Jew “truther” who doesn’t strive to downplay/disparage the evidence of CD and push the LIHOP theory (implying Arab/Moslmem “masterminds”) and generally do everything possible to direct attention away from the prime suspects: Israel and its fanatical Jewish supremacist partisans.

I agree with your suggestion/implication that the planners may have shot themselves in the foot by trying to be too “politically correct”.

I disagree about the nanothermite. It was found in the dust, it’s an explosive/incendiary material, it shouldn’t have been there, the peer reviewed paper has not been refuted – and it’s damning. I disagree that it was “oversold”, and to the extent it was “oversold” – the point is moot, since nobody is suggesting that nanothermite was used exclusively (i.e., nobody is saying high explosives were not also used).

“I disagree about the nanothermite. It was found in the dust, it’s an explosive/incendiary material, it shouldn’t have been there, the peer reviewed paper has not been refuted – and it’s damning. I disagree that it was “oversold”, and to the extent it was “oversold” – the point is moot, since nobody is suggesting that nanothermite was used exclusively (i.e., nobody is saying high explosives were not also used).”

I agree 100%. Joshua please consider that this is in fact an elaborate strawman that even if “unintentional” would warrant exclusion from the hearings of Professor Fetzer. This fostering of infighting based on misleading interpretations of the perspectives and findings of the scholars responsible for the nano-thermite paper are given the stakes, dangerous and alarming to say the least. Also the completely specious arguments for pursuing the red herring of DEW has been dealt with on numerous occasions, notably here by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

A Hypothesis in Search of Facts
One of the observations that seems to have motivated Wood to come up with her directed energy weapon hypothesis is that the debris pile at Ground Zero does not seem to be tall enough to contain enough steel to equal what was in the Twin Towers before they came down. She departs from verifiable fact quite early with this claim. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, performed the first technical review of what brought down the Twin Towers and WTC 7. Even in its report, FEMA acknowledges (inconveniently for the official story, which cannot account for this fine destruction of the Twin Towers) that roughly 90% of the Twin Towers’ mass fell outside their footprints. Indeed, the entire plaza was covered with steel pieces and assemblies. Some of the structural steel was thrown as far away as the Winter Gardens.
Given all this, there is no reason to expect a taller debris pile at Ground Zero than the photographs show. Wood’s belief that some of the steel must have been turned into dust rests on a completely spurious interpretation of the visual evidence. Her hypothesis is an attempt to solve a nonexistent problem. As we will show, it can be sustained only by additional poor analysis and leaps of faith, just like the official explanation.

There is ZERO evidence supporting this hypothesis (which amounts to arguing the arbitrary), thus further investigation would truly result in the tremendous waste of time and energy that Mr. Fetzer derisively invokes against the sound hypothesis of nanothermitic materials having been utilized as PART of the destruction of the twin towers. This distinction is important to understand.

Jim Fetzer September 28, 2011 at 8:41 am

What is important to understand is that Wiltshire spends an inordinate amount of time misrepresenting our work. Anyone who has read any of our studies will know better. If he thinks that false claims like his advances the “9/11 Truth” movement, then he needs to find another line of work. Nanothermite has been sold to the 9/11 movement as “explosive” and capable of destroying the Twin Towers, but it turns out that its explosive force is less than 13% that of TNT. Its shockwaves travel at 895 m/s and cannot have pulverized the concrete or shattered the steel, which would require shockwaves that travel far faster, 3,200 m/s for concrete and 6,100 m/s for steel. So who is spreading false information? This guy should take a look in the mirror. He is very bad news.

I must be “bad news” for asking for supporting evidence for your claims Fetzer.
You’ve erected an elaborate straw man. Prove me wrong. Take the Support your claims challenge! I offer you $50.00 dollars! Provide one direct quote with supporting documentation from the scholars you are attacking where they state that nanothermite alone was responsible for the destruction of the towers. Care to accept the Jim Fetzer uses elaborate strawmen challenge?

What part of my work do I have wrong? Unless you are
pulling these insults out of thin air, you are implying you
have good reasons for them. Well, what are they? Here
is my latest presentation on 9/11. What do I have wrong?

People who don’t learn from history are bound to repeat its mistakes – forgot who said it originally, but it certainly applies to wanting an independent investigation of 9/11, forums about its mistaken investigation, etc.

The United States has had a long history of this, ever since the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, its inadequate inquiries, and repeated calls for more.

Just think of the long list of unsatisfactory ones – America getting sucked into the Korean War, the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis ones, the assassinations of JFIK, MLK, RFK, and former Alabam Governor George Wallace, America getting involved in the Vietnames civil war, Watergate, the “October Surprise”, the assassinations of John Lennon and President Reagan, Iran-Contra, Whitewater, Clinton’s impeachment, etc.

None of them have satisfied any serious critics, so why go on calling for more.

Just determine the truth as best you can, do what you can to publicize it, and then move on.

Why the HELL can’t any of you geniuses consider the evidence that nanothermite WAS used and ALSO allow that it may not be the sole agent used to bring down the towers?

From the point of view of plain old common sense, it would seem that nanothermite was used to destroy or ignite the upper floors, while some kind of large explosion at the base of the towers destroyed the basic structure? This also coincides with the video evidence: numerous small explosions on the upper floors (nanothermite) and a large blast at or below the base, the coup de gras.

The zionists that planned this ain’t stupid. They were well aware that tall buildings might need additional “help” in falling into an unidentifiable heap of dust and that neither nanothermite nor a mini-nuke by themselves would do the trick. And since this was the first time this had ever been done, wouldn’t it be prudent to err on the side of over-destruction, if you were planning such an untried and unproven event?

I wish 911 truthers would stop making fools of themselves and the rest of us by talking out their rectums about things they don’t know jack about.

I agree. It is a deliberate misrepresentation of the opinions of the attacked scholars in Mr. Fetzer’s article. Nowhere do they categorically state that nanothermite alone is the sole agent of the destruction of the twin towers. This is a pattern of abuse from Mr. Fetzer that is disturbing.

Jim Fetzer September 28, 2011 at 8:53 am

What is disturbing is that Wiltshire has either not read our studies or is deliberately misrepresenting. Either way, he is very bad news–and reinforces his incompetence or corruption with every new post.

Fetzer you can’t even provide one direct quote to base your straw man on. I’ve read the studies, should I use your tactic of poisoning the well and presume that you obviously have not read the studies either? I don’t need to, I’ve asked repeatedly for just one quote and you have failed utterly to provide it. You simply resort to insinuation that you have and then post a red herring hyper link to a paper where within there are not quotes. Prove me wrong, Type ” insert direct quote that you have not abridged whatsoever” – Scholar’s name in question and a link to their paper or article saying as much. It’s really not that difficult Fetzer.

Gordon Duff September 21, 2011 at 5:50 pm

Josh,
This is a good start. However, I think you have made an effective point you may be unaware of. You have proven to me that the group in Toronto is a “gatekeeper” organization capable of misdirecting any evidentiary oriented effort.
As soon as we saw Chudd mentioned, after his fiasco of pro-Gaddafi/Al Qaeda blithering, things fell to total shit.

Any discussion of nanothermite is, in itself, an embarrassing admission that a decade has been wasted while intelligence agency moles have been directing the 9/11 truth movement.

Grif is right to oppose the idea of Al Qaeda.

Where all are wrong is that no one has yet to establish the existence of Al Qaeda in the first place.

Then again, when intelligence amateurs critique intelligence operations without basic knowledge of clandestine operational techniques, blithering will be the only result.

Get me criminal lawers and forensic scientists. Begin an investigation, question real witnesses under oath, those we know were involved and have all those questions answered, beginning with how hijacked planes could evade the NORAD satellite grid.

Where the hell were your military and intelligence experts, your air defense folks. Did anyone try to get a statement from General Gul?

Joshua, thanks for attending the hearings and giving your observations. I think that thermite cutter charges were used to cut the steel. Explosives were also used, it appears obvious when we look at the beams flying horizontally from the towers and the sounds of explosions have been documented. Possibly, mini nukes were place in the basement. Maybe nano-thermite paint on the steel decking. The concrete slabs were pulverized. The pyroclastic dust clouds were reminiscent of a volcano with extreme explosive power, pulverizing rock or concrete in this case. Whatever, we know it was a demolition. Many demolition experts have testified that the towers, all, were demolished. This is obvious and any jury of our peers will agree when presented with simple and concise ‘evidence.’The ‘dancing Israeli’s’ were happy that this complex operation had been successful. Again, Silverstein admitted that they “had to pull it”. When we look at the purchase of the Towers and complicity of the New York Port Authority we see much evidence of planning for the event. Dominic Suter and the Urban Moving Systems, all released back to Israel. Rumsfield admits a missile hit the Pentagon. Bush jokes about finding WMD’s in Iraq. Cheney is exposed by Minetta at the 911 hearings, standing down the interception of the aircraft now long off
its planned route. PNAC documents for a ‘New Pearl Harbor Event’. I know that you know, that the evidence is overwhelming. Getting this in front of a Grand Jury or Citizens Tribunal is the task. We have more than enough evidence, and I believe we should keep exposing the evidence so all people will know this story as well as you. Best Wishes for Peace and Justice! Doug

Laurie September 21, 2011 at 12:08 pm

Josh,

It was nice to see you again at the Hearing since our last discussions with Tony’s students on the Academy’s responsibility to address 9/11.

While I can, and do, appreciate constructive criticism, you seem to have overlooked our stated objective # 4 on our website:

(4) To engage the attention of the public, the international community and the media through witness testimony as well as through media events broadcasted via the Internet during the four day event.

This is directly related to the purpose of my presentation – to explain how these and future events should be framed in order for the public to take it more seriously and to answer many of the questions people have as to why it has not been so far – and the Senator’s presentation – to give us another method to do so.

Our request of Mathieu Kassovitz to make a statement, which he so graciously accepted, was because he attended all four days and intently listened to all of the evidence and considered how he could contribute in getting this information out more successfully in the public sphere.

And there is certainly nothing out of line to give a personal, non front group, donator of $50,000 a few minutes of micophonetime. This is, at its core, a public relations battle.

Opposition has to be funded. Many activists in the academic world are indirectly funded via their positions, and moreso those with tenure.

But at the end of the day we are up against powers with a mountain of money to spend or buy what they need. And they certainly bought their way into the 9-11 movement and alternative media, and it was not expensive.

Apologies for not replying sooner. It was nice to see you again too. It was a privilege to collaborate with you at McMaster University back in March.

Objective # 4 specifies two ways the public, the international community and the media would be engaged. Please could you indicate whether your presentation qualified as “witness testimony” or a “media event”? If your presentation qualified as “witness testimony” then it surely should have to be held to the standards defined in objective # 2?

Blakeney is a commie – a self confessed marxist…what more do you need.

Jim Fetzer September 23, 2011 at 10:20 am

Peter is a mental midget, has he has demonstrated here again and again. If he had any arguments that show Joshua has anything wrong, he would present them. But he can’t so he doesn’t. And it is all too obvious that these attacks on me are diversions from the serious problems with the Hearings that Joshua has identified, including the perpetuation of the myth of explosive nanothermite. It is a farce when a self-styled “hard science” group can’t acknowledge that they have made a blunder.

ronisrael September 21, 2011 at 6:15 am

What demolished the WTC towers?

“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”

Interesting, but wouldn’t the windows have blown out from the bottom up as the floors were pulverized?

ronisrael September 22, 2011 at 12:32 am

No Bob,
It is not an air blast wave. as you can hear in the Officer’s explanation regarding what happens when this “wave” hits the air – nothing.
It is a very peculiar phenomenon which happens in an underground nuclear detonation. it is an instant pressure to fast to respond as shattering.

bargain bob September 22, 2011 at 9:01 am

That is a very peculiar phenomenon, pulverizes everything, concrete, steel, office equipment. everything except glass. and it expels large structural beams etc. hundreds of yards and don’t forget body parts on roofs of adjacent buildings! and the squibs, not an air blast?? and the USS Liberty was just a case of mistaken identity.. kosher misinformation!! or just BS.

ronisrael September 22, 2011 at 9:37 am

Dear Bob,
Don’t be so quick to judge.
The large beams are from the upper part the “damaged zone”.
the glass in the crashed zone (pulverized) is not shattered.
not until the solid upper part comes crashing down

60sstreetpunk September 21, 2011 at 5:28 am

By the way Kassovitz is fighting the Holocaust crowd. He has to gently chuckle at how Holocaust crowd went after him when all along Kassovitz’ grandparents were sent to a concentration camp.

60sstreetpunk September 21, 2011 at 5:25 am

I liked article. I strongly recommend that all watch video here showing French actor-director Mathieu Kassovitz. He speaks like most of us would- his heart and mind affected. Interesting that he mentioned that hid father who came out of Communist country could not deal with or want him to tell him about other side of 9-11. This is akin to PTSD where many shut out the existence of the wars and all associated with it. Kassovitz appears genuine- the real McCoy- looking for the truth and concerned about his fellow man.

mel September 21, 2011 at 2:43 am

Mini-nukes? directed energy weapons? Fetzer? Barret?

Oh dear, I have taken a new look at you, Joshua Blakeney.

Are you sure they shouldn’t have invited David “I’m Jesus and a Lady” Shayler along too – just for fun?

Thank goodness no one followed your advice for the Toronto Hearings.

It would have been a disgusting slingfest of “laser beams” and “the Jooz did it”.

As it is the Hearings were conducted with dignity, respect and rationality.

Jim Fetzer September 22, 2011 at 4:31 pm

Mel, here’s a nice test of your commitment to logic and evidence.
Look at my most recent presentation on 9/11 and explain what I
have wrong. That should be easy for one of your vast intellect:

“False Flag Terror and the Rise of the Global Police State”
(Portland, OR, 9 September 2011)

Typical of your intellectual incompetence, you do not seem to
understand that those who lodge the kinds of smears that are your
area of specialization bear the burden of proof. Not only are you doing
what you can to excuse Mel for his own unjustifiable allegations, but
you are posing as if I had the burden to disprove your rubbish.

Apart from issuing cheap insults that you are unable to substantiate,
what have you ever done to expose the malfeasance of Sunstein and his
chums? It really speaks volumes that you attack me without warrant.
You are now attacking Gordon and impugning Joshua, when they are
both doing brilliant work. What’s wrong with this picture?

Joshua and Gordon and even you are not doing “brilliant” work. This article is fundamentally idiotic. Besides the utterly unjustified hero worship of David Ray Griffin, I note a curious double standard where the esteemed Mr Blakeney seems to think that it was wrong to allow Chussodovsky and PD Scott to appear at the conference to push the LIHOP theory – which Blakeney seems to think has been proven wrong beyond doubt by your fabulist colleague Griffin – but at the same time is clearly exercised by the failure to allow competing theories on the issue of nanothermite. Of course the irony is that that Blakeney’s objections to nanothermite are sound. In fact, if he were to apply the exacting standards of scholarship which inexplicably emerged to deep six this utterly dubious theory, to all the claims against the official version, he might realize that far from being “distinguished scholars of integrity”, he recognize that you, Griffin and Barrett are in fact maintaining the appearance but not the standard of scholarship. Instead of a coherent chain of evidence which disputes the official version and presents a credible alternative theory as to what happened, I see anomaly hunting, the misrepresentation of sources and confirmation bias. It is possible to at the same time not like what the Bush Administration did in response to 9/11 and to also recognize that most 9/11 Truther accounts, including from immodest scholars who have abandoned all pretense of scholarship in favor shrill conspiracism, are an utter crock.

Seems that this hearing, like all the others. was essentially a waste of time where a diverse group went over false claims by the government – ones of little importance which all could agree to – while engaging in most marginal claims about who really caused the tragedy, how it was done, and for what purpose – what you wanted to make even more divisive by wanting to bring in Professor Fetzer’s wild claims.

Wonder if he would have added again that John P. Wheeler, III was killed because he was threatening to expose the attacks as an insider job?

Until you develop some plausible theory about these concerns, you might as well be talking about space aliens having done it, as no one in authority will pay any attention.

Perhaps Professor Fetzer was not invited because of his overly antagonistic history of casting aspersions upon those in the 9/11 Truth community with whom he takes issue? Not to mention his repeated use of known disinformation and misinformation tactics to propagate theories that do not adhere to use of the scientific method. Namely hypothesizing theories that are contradicted by evidence. For a complete examination of the above charges please read the following article.

I am curious to see how in light of these revelations you may reconsider your ardent support of Professor Fetzer. I will be pouring through Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones’ findings regarding Nano Thermite as to assure myself that they have been accurately portrayed and not victims of another mischaracterizing offense from professor Fetzer.

Please read the entire article but with special attention to the mechanism employed in promoting a non falsifiable hypothesis while simultaneously attacking hypotheses which are able to be tested with empirical evidence. It is easily understandable on multiple levels why Mr. Fetzer was not invited to this event.

Sixth Type of Disinformation:

The sixth level of disinformation is the promotion of theories that are unable to be tested with available evidence. Such theories are called non-falsifiable:

“There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ‘falsifiable’. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue.”[85]

If a theory can not be tested or corroborated with any available evidence, it can not be proved or disproved. Therefore, non-falsifiable theories can only function to create a never-ending debate. 9/11 researchers are only able to prove what happened on 9/11 with the available evidence. Although speculation is essential in any line of inquiry, speculation alone is never enough to prove a theory—evidence and/or experiments are also needed.

It is therefore misleading to promote non-falsifiable hypotheses as if they could explain the events of 9/11 for the simple reason that they can not be proven. If something can not be proved, it will not convince a skeptic. Therefore, non-falsifiable theories will never be compelling enough to help force another 9/11 investigation.

[Steven Jones:] “Is the directed-beams hypothesis a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis? Let the proponents delineate crucial experiments which will permit testing the hypothesis, and which have the potential of proving the hypothesis wrong. If an hypothesis is not falsifiable by experiments, it is not scientific.”[86]

Examples #26-29:

Non-falsifiable theories include:

26. Directed energy weapons were used to destroy or partially destroy the World Trade Center Buildings.

Those who promote non-falsifiable theories should support the most credible evidence to get another 9/11 investigation.[88] This is the only conceivable way to get definitive answers to un-answerable questions. It is possible to imagine a scenario in which all of the documents in the world involving directed energy weapons were turned over and the theorists could still say: “you haven’t found them yet—they are still hiding the real ones somewhere”. After all, these top secret documents could be hiding right beside the “missing” weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

This hypothetical example clearly shows that non-falsifiable theories will never lead us to the truth about 9/11. This means that they should be rejected until they are shown to be falsifiable with experiments. Speculation about technology that may or may not exist will likely never be proved unless another 9/11 investigation takes place.

A non-falsifiable theory has no credible evidence to support it. However, they can be “supported” with misinformation and disinformation. In place of real evidence, non-falsifiable theories are given false credibility with misleading arguments. Consequently, if a theory is supported with false evidence (i.e. misinformation or disinformation), it does not count as actual evidence and the theory retains its non-falsifiable status. However, it is usually tenable to prove that these misleading arguments are false (i.e. they are falsifiable)—but the actual theory preserves its non-falsifiable status if it unsubstantiated with credible evidence. As soon as a theory can be tested or validated with legitimate evidence it becomes falsifiable.

This sixth type of disinformation is one of the strongest kinds. Defenders of non-falsifiable theories will believe what they want to believe, and they will never be proved wrong to their satisfaction. This is worsened when their beliefs are supported by disinformation or misinformation.

Conclusions

Those who care about the truth about 9/11 should also care about disinformation and misinformation. All 9/11 “official story” skeptics agree that the 9/11 commission report consists of substantial disinformation.

The truth about 9/11 is of primary importance. If we accept this to be true, then it is also true that misleading arguments are harmful to this cause. Therefore, the intent involved in promoting misleading arguments is irrelevant. Arguments based on disinformation/misinformation will almost always result in false/incomplete/misleading conclusions.

The repeated promotion of arguments demonstrated to be misleading are a disservice to all of those who truly care about what really happened on 9/11.

barbara September 22, 2011 at 8:17 pm

Wow! What a blatant distortion of Judy Wood’s work! Either you have never listened to her or read anything by her, or you are purposely mischaracterizing her ideas to draw people away from other avenues of investigation that could actually lead to unraveling this hideous plot. Absolutely everything Judy Wood deals with is evidence based. You’d know that if you had read her reports. Whoever you are, you just like to start trouble and waste people’s time answering to your twisted ad-hominems. Shame on you.

Dr. Wood has identified the type of technology and provided a proof of concept of this technology and has shown a direct correlation with the evidence of what happened to the buildings. Those promoting nano-thermitic spray-on material or nanothermite in any form have not shown ANY evidence whatsoever that this material had anything to do with the destruction of the buildings. Thermite is a welding material. Are they saying the buildings were welded to death? The buildings, for the most part, turned to dust in mid-air. How does a welding material explain that? Explain the connection between a welding material and what happened to the WTC buildings. If a welding material was involved, perhaps someone can explain how it was deployed and how it did the total destruction we observed. NO ONE HAS YET SHOWN ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE connecting THIS WELDING MATERIAL WITH WHAT HAPPEND TO THE WTC BUILDINGS. You can add themite or nanothermite to your non-falsible theories and take off directed energy because it is not a theory.

Yes they took it to court. and it was dismissed with prejudice.
What has support of this idea by a handful of people done for 9/11 Truth? By far (to date) the most damaging thing has been that Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood attempted to take their ideas to court. United States District Judge George B. Daniels dismissed their complaints, with prejudice;

“Plaintiffs claim that a terrorist attack was not responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center complex (“WTC”). According to plaintiffs, the evidence demonstrates that the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers was caused by a United States secret military “directed energy weapon.” Plaintiffs’ attorney argues that “the defendants knowingly participated in the fraud of furthering the false claim that two wide-body jetliners hit the World Trade Center on 9/11/01.”
…

“All defendants … moved to dismiss the lawsuits as being frivolous, and for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6), respectively. The motions to dismiss are granted and all three complaints are dismissed with prejudice.”

“Plaintiffs maintain that the alleged fraudulent nature of the investigation has furthered the deception, perpetrated upon the masses, that the WTC was demolished as a result of terrorists plowing two commercial airplanes, filled with thousand of gallons of jet fuel, directly into the Twin Towers at a high rate of speed. They claim that, through the employment of psychological operations, millions were deceived into believing that the destruction was caused by a terrorist hijacking that murdered thousands of innocent people inside. Plaintiffs theorize that what actually occurred was that the Twin Towers disintegrated after being struck by the United States military’s secret laser-like weaponry. All three plaintiffs [The third plaintiff is Ed Haas. -rep.] explain that these “directed energy weapons” “are operational in Earth[’s] orbit, at high altitude, low altitude, at sea and on land, ranging in lethality from the capacity to do great damage such as that of destroying the World Trade Center Twin Towers in less than 10 seconds each, as occurred on 9/11/01, down to and including imposition of a disabling stun on human beings for crowd control and/or other psy ops [psychological operations] purposes.”

“Plaintiffs, understandably, offer nothing more than conjecture and supposition to support their claim that the towers were struck by high powered energy beams. Their personal hypothesis about what should be concluded from publicly disclosed information does not qualify either of them as an original source of information in order to sustain an individual FCA claim on behalf of the Government.”

“Plaintiffs’ theories about the cause of the 9/11 disaster completely fail to state a cognizable claim for relief.”

“Plaintiffs merely allege the existence of a nefarious conspiracy of epic proportion. They name all defendants as coconspirators. They therefore conclude that all defendants’ work records and the services they performed are fraudulent because they are tainted by the illegal conspiracy in which they participated. Such generalized attempts at fraud pleading fail to meet the requirements of Rule 9(b). See, United States ex rel. Joshi v. St. Luke’s Hosp., Inc., 441 F.3d 552, 556-57 (8th Cir. 2006)”

About Us

Veterans Today (VT) is an independent online journal representing the positions and providing news for members of the military and veteran community in areas of national security, geopolitical stability and domestic policy. All writers are fully independent and represent their own point of view and not necessarily the point of view of any other writer, administrator or entity.